This article was downloaded by: [Dr Kenneth Shapiro]On: 09 June 2015, At: 08:31Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of Applied AnimalWelfare SciencePublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/haaw20

Characteristics of RelinquishedDogs and Their Owners at14 Rehoming Centers in theUnited KingdomGillian Diesel a , David Brodbelt a & Dirk U. Pfeiffer aa The Royal Veterinary College, University ofLondon , Hatfield, United KingdomPublished online: 16 Dec 2009.

To cite this article: Gillian Diesel , David Brodbelt & Dirk U. Pfeiffer (2010)Characteristics of Relinquished Dogs and Their Owners at 14 Rehoming Centers inthe United Kingdom, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 13:1, 15-30, DOI:10.1080/10888700903369255

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888700903369255

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or

indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ken

neth

Sha

piro

] at

08:

31 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

JOURNAL OF APPLIED ANIMAL WELFARE SCIENCE, 13:15–30, 2010

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1088-8705 print/1532-7604 online

DOI: 10.1080/10888700903369255

Characteristics of Relinquished Dogsand Their Owners at 14 Rehoming

Centers in the United Kingdom

Gillian Diesel, David Brodbelt, and Dirk U. Pfeiffer

The Royal Veterinary College, University of London,

Hatfield, United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, each year many companion animal (pet) caregivers (own-

ers) hand over dogs to shelters for rehoming. Studies conducted in the United

States and Australia have shown that accommodation issues and problematic be-

haviors are the most common reasons for dogs to be relinquished. The purpose

of this study was to provide a clearer understanding of common characteristics of

relinquished dogs in the United Kingdom. A descriptive study conducted during

2005 collected data on 2,806 dogs relinquished to Dogs Trust’s rehoming centers

in the United Kingdom. The most common reasons for dogs to be relinquished

were their problematic behaviors and their need for more attention than the owner

could provide. The results of this study identify several common characteristics

of relinquished dogs as well as differences between its results and those found in

studies conducted in the United States and Australia. An improved knowledge of

characteristics of relinquished dogs should inform the development of strategies

for improved management of the rehoming process.

Every year, caregivers (owners) who are unable or unwilling to keep their dogs

relinquish large numbers of dogs to nonhuman animal shelters and welfare orga-

nizations. In a study carried out in Indiana, Patronek, Beck, and Glickman (1997)

found that 3.8% of the dog population was relinquished per year. Relinquishment

of a companion animal (pet) has been described as a difficult and emotional

process (Kass, New, Scarlett, & Salman, 2001; Patronek et al., 1997). Statistics

Correspondence should be sent to Gillian Diesel, The Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead

Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL9 7TA, UK. Email: gilldiesel@yahoo.co.uk

15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ken

neth

Sha

piro

] at

08:

31 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

16 DIESEL, BRODBELT, PFEIFFER

from animal shelters in the United States found that, due to lack of suitable

new homes, nearly 60% of dogs who are relinquished to animal shelters are

euthanized (Houpt, Honig, & Reisner, 1996); these shelter euthanasias account

for between 1/10 and 1/4 of all canine deaths, thereby being the leading cause

of canine death in the United States (Olson, Moulton, Nett, & Salman, 1991).

Previous international studies have shown that the most common reasons

given for relinquishment of a pet are issues related to accommodation, dog

behavior, and owner lifestyle (Marston & Bennett, 2003). It is important to

be aware that on many occasions, what the owner classifies as a “behavioral

problem” is actually a normal behavior. This is often due to owners’ lack of

knowledge or understanding or their unrealistic expectations (Houpt et al., 1996).

Relinquished dogs are more likely to be less than 2 to 3 years old and/or

sexually intact. Owner income tends to be low and the owners do not participate

in dog-training classes (Gregory, 2000; Marston & Bennett, 2003; Miller, Staats,

Partlo, & Rada, 1996; National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy,

1997; New et al., 2000; Patronek, Glickman, Beck, McCabe, & Ecker, 1996;

Shore, Petersen, & Douglas, 2003). Patronek et al. (1996) found (a) that nearly

65% of relinquished dogs were sexually intact compared with 34% of the general

dog population and (b) that owners receiving helpful behavioral advice for

dogs with problematic behaviors were much less likely to relinquish their dogs.

“Owner’s moving” was given as the reason for relinquishment in 40.4% of all

relinquished cases in a study in Australia, whereas problematic behaviors of the

dog were given as the reason for 11% (Marston, Bennett, & Coleman, 2004).

There have been very few studies documenting the characteristics of relin-

quished dogs in the United Kingdom, and these may differ from those reported in

studies conducted elsewhere in the world. An understanding of common features

of relinquished dogs in terms of reasons for relinquishment, home environments,

and previous owner characteristics could aid policymakers and charities in target-

ing resources to reduce the occurrence of relinquishment. Hence, the objectives

of this study were to describe the characteristics of relinquished dogs, their

previous owners, and home environments in the United Kingdom.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A descriptive study was carried out using dogs relinquished to Dogs Trust during

a 12-month study period between January 1 and December 31, 2005, inclusive.

Dogs Trust is the largest dog welfare charity in the United Kingdom, rehoming

more than 10,000 dogs every year. They take in many stray dogs and dogs

handed over by members of the public. Dogs Trust has a noneuthanasia policy

and tries to find a suitable home for all dogs who come into its rehoming

centers. Occasionally, a dog with aggressive tendencies will be kept back for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ken

neth

Sha

piro

] at

08:

31 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

RELINQUISHED DOGS AND THEIR OWNERS 17

further training, will be placed in a sanctuary for nonrehomable dogs, or—in

extreme circumstances—will be euthanized. Information that may have been

collected from the previous owners combined with a behavioral assessment for

each dog helps Dogs Trust place the dog in a suitable home. A previous study

has shown that Dogs Trust has a 14.7% return rate; that is, 14.7% of the dogs

whom the Trust rehomes are returned to its rehoming centers (Diesel, Pfeiffer,

& Brodbelt, 2008).

The researchers attempted to obtain data from all 15 Dogs Trust centers in

operation at the start of the study, but one center had to be excluded because it did

not have computerized records. The owners of all dogs who were relinquished

at 14 of the Dogs Trust’s rehoming centers (Figure 1) were required to complete

a questionnaire that included information about the reason for relinquishment,

FIGURE 1 The map shows the location of 14 Dogs Trust rehoming centers used in the

study.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ken

neth

Sha

piro

] at

08:

31 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

18 DIESEL, BRODBELT, PFEIFFER

the owner, and the home environment. The questionnaire was designed using

closed questions and one open question to allow for the owner to provide

additional information if considered necessary. The questionnaire was pretested

at 3 rehoming centers with owners who relinquished dogs in December 2004 (the

questionnaire is available from Gillian Diesel on request). The information from

these questionnaires and additional information about the dogs’ signalment (age,

sex, breed, size, spay/neuter status) from the Dogs Trust database was entered

into a relational database (Microsoft Access 2002, Microsoft Corporation).

Descriptive statistics were calculated using Excel (2002, Microsoft Corpora-

tion) and Stata v9.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX). Data from the 14 rehoming

centers were combined as the most common reasons for relinquishment were

the same for all centers. The study used prevalence ratios and the z test to

determine if there was a statistically significant difference (significance level of

p < .05) between proportions. The data were divided into subpopulations of

dogs: dogs originally obtained from Dogs Trust and dogs obtained elsewhere.

Dogs obtained elsewhere were divided into those obtained from another rescue

kennel or shelter and those obtained privately (friends, family, breeders, or pet

stores). Owners provided this information in the questionnaire. Owners were

asked where they had obtained their dogs. In addition to this information, all

dogs whom Dogs Trust rehomes or cares for are microchipped; therefore, a dog

returned to a Dogs Trust kennel can be traced based on the microchip number.

For ease of reading, we refer to three groups of dogs as follows:

1. DT group (Dogs Trust group), dogs originally obtained from Dogs Trust;

2. PO group (privately obtained group), dogs obtained privately; and

3. ORK group (other rescue kennel group), dogs obtained from a rescue

kennel other than Dogs Trust.

RESULTS

Dog Characteristics

Data were collected for 2,806 dogs. Results of the descriptive analysis show that

male dogs comprise the larger proportion of the 2,806 and crossbreeds comprise

the majority of all dogs (Table 1). More than half of all the dogs had been

spayed or neutered before arrival at the Dogs Trust. Of all the dogs, more than

50% were medium (10–30 kg); less than 1 in 4 were small size (<10 kg). The

majority of dogs were between 6 months and 6 years old. The PO group had a

significantly higher proportion of purebreds than the DT and ORK groups (p <

.001) and a significantly higher proportion of intact dogs on arrival at kennels

(p < .001) than those dogs obtained from the Dogs Trust. A significantly higher

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ken

neth

Sha

piro

] at

08:

31 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

RELINQUISHED DOGS AND THEIR OWNERS 19

TABLE 1

Descriptive Results of Dog Characteristics for Those Dogs Relinquished

to Dogs Trust During 2005

Dogs Not Obtained

From Dogs Trust

Variable Name

Variable

Categories

Dogs

Obtained

Privately

(%)

Dogs Obtained

From Kennels

Other Than

Dogs Trust

(%)

Dogs

Originally

Obtained

From Dogs

Trust

All Dogs

(%)

Total number

of dogs

1,217 396 1,193 2,806

Sex Male 660 (54.2) 231 (58.3) 704 (59.0) 1,595 (56.8)

Female 557 (45.8) 165 (41.7) 489 (41.0) 1,211 (43.2)

Crossbreed Crossbred 827 (68.0) 346 (87.4) 1,047 (87.8) 2,220 (79.1)

Purebred 390 (32.0) 50 (12.6) 146 (12.2) 586 (20.9)

Size Small (<10 kg) 360 (29.6) 59 (14.9) 210 (17.6) 629 (22.4)

Medium

(10–30 kg)

638 (52.4) 274 (69.2) 769 (64.5) 1,681 (59.9)

Large (>30 kg) 218 (17.9) 63 (15.9) 214 (17.9) 495 (17.6)

Unknown 1 (0.1) 0 0 1 (0.1)

Age <0.5 years 227 (18.7) 20 (5.1) 151 (12.6) 398 (14.2)

0.5–<1 year 257 (21.1) 29 (7.3) 330 (27.7) 616 (21.9)

1–<3 years 311 (25.5) 77 (19.5) 424 (35.5) 812 (28.9)

3–<6 years 209 (17.2) 123 (31.1) 198 (16.6) 530 (18.9)

6–<10 169 (13.9) 113 (28.6) 76 (6.4) 358 (12.8)

�10 44 (3.6) 33 (8.3) 14 (1.2) 91 (3.2)

Unknown 0 1 (0.1) 0 1 (0.1)

Spayed/Neutered

before arrival

Yes 355 (29.2) 314 (79.3) 1,012 (84.8) 1,681 (59.9)

No 862 (70.8) 82 (20.7) 181 (15.2) 1,125 (40.1)

How long have

they owned

the dog

<6months 414 (34.0) 52 (13.1) 896 (75.1) 1,362 (48.5)

6 months–1 year 211 (17.3) 36 (9.1) 175 (14.6) 422 (15.0)

1–5 years 384 (31.6) 208 (52.6) 116 (9.7) 708 (25.2)

>8 years 188 (15.5) 99 (25.1) 3 (0.3) 290 (10.4)

Unknown 20 (1.6) 1 (0.1) 3 (0.3) 24 (0.9)

proportion (75.1%) of dogs in the DT group had been owned for less than

6 months compared with 34.0% PO and 13.1% ORK (p < .001).

Dog Obtainment

Of the dogs who had been relinquished, the majority had been obtained to

provide companionship for a member of the family or other dog (Table 2).

Almost 10% of the dogs were obtained without any planning, and only a small

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ken

neth

Sha

piro

] at

08:

31 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

20 DIESEL, BRODBELT, PFEIFFER

TABLE 2

Descriptive Results of Characteristics of Dog Obtainment for

Those Dogs Relinquished to Dogs Trust During 2005

Dogs Not Obtained

From Dogs Trust

Variable Name

Variable

Categories

Dogs

Obtained

Privately

(%)

Dogs Obtained

From Kennels

Other Than

Dogs Trust

(%)

Dogs

Originally

Obtained

From Dogs

Trust

All Dogs

(%)

Total number

of dogs

1,217 396 1,193 2,806

Why did you

obtain your

dog

Companionship 783 (64.3) 344 (86.9) 1,035 (86.7) 2,162 (77.1)

Gift 172 (14.1) 0 56 (4.7) 228 (8.1)

Stray 64 (5.3) 24 (6.1) 2 (0.2) 90 (3.2)

Other 64 (5.3) 6 (1.5) 1 (0.1) 71 (2.5)

Working dog 37 (3.1) 2 (0.5) 6 (0.5) 45 (1.6)

Guard dog 21 (1.7) 6 (1.5) 9 (0.8) 36 (1.3)

Missing 76 (6.2) 14 (3.5) 84 (7.0) 174 (6.2)

How much

planning went

into decision

to get dog

Not planned 257 (21.1) 10 (2.5) 9 (0.8) 276 (9.8)

Discussed briefly 234 (19.2) 46 (11.6) 104 (8.7) 384 (13.7)

Lots of thought 502 (41.3) 290 (73.3) 889 (74.5) 1,681 (59.9)

Missing 224 (18.4) 50 (12.6) 191 (16.0) 465 (16.6)

Did you obtain

advice before

getting dog

No 1,018 (83.7) 363 (91.7) 1,082 (90.7) 2,463 (87.8)

Yes 116 (9.5) 16 (4.0) 78 (6.5) 210 (7.5)

Missing 83 (6.8) 17 (4.3) 33 (2.8) 133 (4.7)

proportion of people received advice (other than advice given by rehoming

kennels) before obtaining a dog.

A significantly higher proportion of dogs from the PO group was obtained

without planning compared with dogs from the DT group and the ORK group

(p < .001). A significantly higher proportion of dogs in the PO group was

obtained as a gift compared with both the ORK and DT groups (p < .001).

Home Environment Characteristics

As shown in Table 3, almost all the new dog owners lived in houses, and

an even greater proportion had a garden or yard. There were slightly higher

percentages of dog owners without any children in the DT group and the ORK

group compared with dog owners in the PO group. However, there were no

significant differences with regard to this variable.

Almost 20% of all the dogs were left on their own for more than 6 hr without

a break. Approximately 11% of dogs from the DT group were left for more than

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ken

neth

Sha

piro

] at

08:

31 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

RELINQUISHED DOGS AND THEIR OWNERS 21

TABLE 3

Descriptive Results of Home Characteristics and Owner Effort and

Commitment of Those Owners Relinquishing a Dog to Dogs Trust During 2005

Dogs Not Obtained

From Dogs Trust

Variable Name

Variable

Categories

Dogs

Obtained

Privately

(%)

Dogs Obtained

From Kennels

Other Than

Dogs Trust

(%)

Dogs

Originally

Obtained

From Dogs

Trust

All Dogs

(%)

Total number

of dogs

1,217 396 1,193 2,806

Home typea House 955 (78.5) 329 (83.1) 1,001 (83.9) 2,285 (81.4)

Bungalow 82 (6.7) 20 (5.1) 91 (7.6) 193 (6.9)

Flat 101 (8.3) 34 (8.6) 50 (4.2) 185 (6.6)

Farm 22 (1.8) 2 (0.5) 11 (0.9) 35 (1.2)

Caravan 7 (0.6) 2 (0.5) 4 (0.3) 13 (0.5)

Other 13 (1.1) 4 (1.0) 3 (0.3) 20 (0.7)

Missing 37 (3.0) 5 (1.2) 33 (2.8) 75 (2.7)

Garden or yard Yes 1,082 (88.9) 360 (90.9) 1,118 (93.7) 2,560 (91.2)

No 94 (7.7) 30 (7.6) 42 (3.5) 166 (5.9)

Missing 41 (3.4) 6 (1.5) 33 (2.8) 80 (2.9)

Age of children

in home

None 458 (37.6) 166 (41.9) 495 (41.5) 1,119 (39.9)

<1 39 (3.2) 26 (6.6) 31 (2.6) 96 (3.4)

1–5 144 (11.8) 42 (10.6) 119 (10.0) 305 (10.9)

6–12 125 (10.3) 43 (10.9) 170 (14.2) 338 (12.0)

13–16 90 (7.4) 29 (7.3) 105 (8.9) 224 (8.0)

Mixedb 185 (15.2) 43 (10.9) 128 (10.7) 356 (12.7)

Mixed <13c 142 (11.7) 42 (10.6) 127 (10.6) 311 (11.1)

Missing 34 (2.8) 5 (1.2) 18 (1.5) 57 (2.0)

How much time

and effort was

involved in

the care of

your dog

Less than

expected

62 (5.1) 34 (8.6) 28 (2.3) 124 (4.4)

Same as

expected

638 (52.4) 237 (59.9) 550 (46.1) 1,425 (50.8)

More than

expected

405 (33.3) 96 (24.2) 508 (42.6) 1,009 (35.9)

Missing 112 (9.2) 29 (7.3) 107 (9.0) 248 (8.9)

How much time

is your dog

left alone

<1 hr 135 (11.1) 41 (10.3) 174 (14.6) 350 (12.5)

1–2 hr 91 (7.5) 23 (5.8) 126 (10.6) 240 (8.5)

2–4 hr 218 (17.9) 82 (20.7) 357 (29.9) 657 (23.4)

4–6 hr 268 (22.0) 102 (25.8) 252 (21.1) 622 (22.2)

>6 hr 288 (23.7) 103 (26.0) 135 (11.3) 526 (18.8)

Missing 217 (17.8) 45 (11.4) 149 (12.5) 411 (14.6)

a“House” refers to a building consisting of two stories; “Bungalow” refers to a single-story

building; “Flat” refers to an apartment that occupies part of a building. b“Mixed” refers to households

with children of varying ages, including some children less than 13 years and some older than

13 years. c“Mixed < 13” refers to households with children of varying ages, but all children are

less than 13 years of age.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ken

neth

Sha

piro

] at

08:

31 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

22 DIESEL, BRODBELT, PFEIFFER

6 hr on their own compared with significantly higher percentages (23.7% and

26.0%) of the PO and ORK groups of dogs (p < .001). Of the owners, 36%

reported that the care and effort associated with looking after their dogs was

more than expected. There was a significantly higher proportion of owners in

the DT group who found the care and effort involved in looking after their dogs

to be more than expected compared with those in the PO and ORK groups

(p < .001).

Dog Behavioral Characteristics

A large proportion of the owners reported that their dogs showed one or more

types of problematic behaviors, the most common being (a) more than one

problem including destructive tendencies, (b) aggression toward people, and

(c) aggression toward other pets (Table 4). Among dogs in the DT group, there

was a significantly lower percentage of dogs without any reported problematic

behaviors (18.1%) compared with those dogs (47.2% and 41.2%) in the PO and

ORK groups (p < .001). It was found that of those dogs with problematic

behaviors in the DT group, a higher percentage of owners received advice

(37.1%) compared with those owners of dogs in the PO and ORK groups (15.1%

and 27.5%) whose dogs had problematic behaviors (p D .05).

Reasons for Relinquishment

Problematic behaviors (34.2%) were the most common reason given for relin-

quishing a dog (Table 5). For 15.4% of dogs in the PO group, problematic

behaviors were given as the reason for relinquishment compared with a signifi-

cantly higher proportion (28.9%, p < .001) among the ORK group and 55.1%

among the DT group (p < .001).

DISCUSSION

Dog Characteristics

The findings of the descriptive analysis are similar to previous studies in that re-

linquished dogs were more likely to be male (Marston & Bennett, 2003; Marston

et al., 2004; Mondelli et al., 2004). A relatively high proportion of dogs (14.2%)

were less than 6 months old, which may be due to unwanted litters or people

obtaining a puppy with insufficient planning. This result broadly agrees with

findings reported from a study in Australia where 10% of all dogs relinquished

were puppies (Marston et al., 2004). However, a previous study carried out by

the Blue Cross (an animal welfare charity in the United Kingdom) in Oxfordshire

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ken

neth

Sha

piro

] at

08:

31 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

RELINQUISHED DOGS AND THEIR OWNERS 23

TABLE 4

Descriptive Results of Dog Behavioral Characteristics for

Those Dogs Relinquished to Dogs Trust During 2005

Dogs Not Obtained

From Dogs Trust

Variable Name

Variable

Categories

Dogs

Obtained

Privately

(%)

Dogs Obtained

From Kennels

Other Than

Dogs Trust

(%)

Dogs

Originally

Obtained

From Dogs

Trust

All Dogs

(%)

Total number

of dogs

1,217 396 1,193 2,806

Number ofreportedproblematic

behaviors

No problems 574 (47.2) 163 (41.2) 216 (18.1) 953 (34.0)More than one

problem with

destruction(excludingaggression)

106 (8.7) 20 (5.0) 195 (16.3) 321 (11.4)

More than onewith aggressiontoward people

47 (3.9) 32 (8.1) 211 (17.7) 290 (10.3)

Aggression

towardpets

59 (4.8) 28 (7.1) 126 (10.6) 213 (7.6)

Destructive 78 (6.4) 23 (5.8) 95 (8.0) 196 (7.0)

Hyperactive 104 (8.5) 22 (5.6) 68 (5.7) 194 (6.9)Aggression

towardpeople

39 (3.2) 29 (7.3) 112 (9.4) 180 (6.4)

Unwanted barking 81 (6.7) 27 (6.8) 38 (3.2) 146 (5.2)More than one

problem

(excludingdestruction andaggression)

42 (3.4) 20 (5.0) 48 (4.0) 110 (3.9)

Urinates or

defecatesin house

50 (4.1) 17 (4.3) 42 (3.5) 109 (3.9)

Other problems 18 (1.5) 11 (2.8) 31 (2.6) 60 (2.1)

Missing 19 (1.6) 4 (1.0) 11 (0.9) 34 (1.3)Did your dog

attend trainingclasses

No 1,097 (90.1) 329 (83.1) 1,044 (87.5) 2,470 (88.0)Yes 103 (8.5) 62 (15.6) 136 (11.4) 301 (10.7)Missing 17 (1.4) 5 (1.3) 13 (1.1) 35 (1.3)

Of those withproblematicbehaviors did

you get anybehavioraladvice

No 523 (81.3) 164 (70.4) 596 (61.0) 1,283 (69.2)Yes 97 (15.1) 64 (27.5) 362 (37.1) 523 (28.2)Missing 23 (3.6) 5 (2.1) 19 (1.9) 47 (2.6)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ken

neth

Sha

piro

] at

08:

31 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

24 DIESEL, BRODBELT, PFEIFFER

TABLE 5

Descriptive Results of Reasons for Relinquishment for

Those Dogs Relinquished to Dogs Trust During 2005

Dogs Not Obtained

From Dogs Trust

Variable Name

Variable

Categories

Dogs

Obtained

Privately

(%)

Dogs Obtained

From Kennels

Other Than

Dogs Trust

(%)

Dogs

Originally

Obtained

From Dogs

Trust

All Dogs

(%)

Total numberof dogs

1,217 396 1,193 2,806

Why have you

given upyour dog

Problematic

behaviors

188 (15.4) 114 (28.9) 657 (55.1) 959 (34.2)

Needs moreattention thancan be given

439 (36.1) 104 (26.3) 251 (21.0) 794 (28.2)

Moving/Landlord 186 (15.3) 68 (17.3) 84 (7.0) 338 (12.0)Owner ill 75 (6.2) 32 (8.1) 30 (2.5) 137 (4.8)Relationship breakup 62 (5.1) 32 (8.1) 39 (3.3) 133 (4.7)

A family memberis allergic

55 (4.5) 15 (3.8) 51 (4.3) 121 (4.3)

Unwanted gift 46 (3.8) 2 (0.5) 2 (0.2) 50 (1.8)Owner died 33 (2.7) 5 (1.3) 6 (0.5) 44 (1.6)

Dog has growntoo big

16 (1.3) 3 (0.7) 14 (1.2) 33 (1.2)

Unwanted litter/

Unwanted dog

26 (2.1) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.1) 28 (1)

Other pet not happy 8 (0.7) 2 (0.5) 12 (1.0) 22 (0.8)Cost 5 (0.4) 2 (0.5) 9 (0.7) 16 (0.6)Fostering/Stray/

Temporary home

14 (1.2) 3 (0.7) 0 17 (0.6)

Owner having baby 5 (0.4) 1 (0.2) 6 (0.5) 12 (0.5)Retired racer/

Retired working dog

10 (0.8) 0 0 10 (0.4)

Forcibly removed/Rescued

8 (0.7) 1 (0.2) 0 9 (0.4)

Change of personal

circumstances

3 (0.2) 0 4 (0.3) 7 (0.3)

Owner’s childscared of dog

2 (0.2) 2 (0.5) 2 (0.2) 6 (0.2)

Neighbor’s complaint 3 (0.2) 1 (0.2) 2 (0.2) 6 (0.2)Failed training 2 (0.2) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.1) 4 (0.1)Missing 31 (2.5) 7 (1.8) 22 (1.8) 60 (2.1)

found that 23% of relinquished dogs were puppies (Bailey, 1992). This difference

may be due to differences in the public’s preference to relinquish puppies to these

organizations or possibly due to differences in the socioeconomic status of dog

owners in the catchment areas of these organizations.

A relatively high number of medium-size dogs were relinquished in this study,

whereas in Australia there were high numbers of small-size dogs (Marston et al.,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ken

neth

Sha

piro

] at

08:

31 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

RELINQUISHED DOGS AND THEIR OWNERS 25

2004). This may be due to differences in breed popularity or the catchment areas

of the shelters used in the study. If the study were based on data from a shelter

with a catchment area located predominantly in a city, it is likely that the general

dog population would contain higher proportions of small-size dogs. This study

included rehoming centers located around the United Kingdom. The catchment

areas of each of these centers would be dependent on the local population density

and the proximity to other rehoming centers.

The percentage of intact dogs, among those relinquished to shelters, was

59% in an Australian study (Marston et al., 2004) and 55% in the United

States (Salman et al., 1998); both percentages are higher than those in this study

(40%). This could be due to the large percentage of dogs in the overall study

population who were originally obtained from rescue kennels, including Dogs

Trust, and thus reflects their policy of spaying or neutering all dogs before they

are rehomed. This interpretation is supported by the finding that in this study the

percentage of intact dogs in the PO group was much higher (71%). The lower

percentage of intact dogs found in this study, when compared with those studies

conducted in the United States and Australia, could also indicate differences

between these countries in people’s preferences and opinions of spaying and

neutering dogs.

Dog Obtainment

The number of people who received advice (apart from the advice received from

the rehoming centers) before obtaining a dog was low, suggesting some people

may obtain a dog without sufficient thought or preparation; this may lead them to

choose an inappropriate dog, particularly those owners who did not obtain their

dog from a rescue kennel. It should be noted that most rescue kennels would

provide all owners with advice before obtaining a dog and would carry out a

“home check” (check the home environment to ensure it is suitable for a dog).

Previous studies have shown that choosing a dog incompatible with the

owner’s lifestyle has resulted in people leaving a dog for long periods of time

or giving their dog very little exercise. This can lead to the development of

problematic behaviors; therefore, the dog may be more likely to be relinquished

(Hubrecht & Serpell, 1993; Schwartz, 2003; Wells & Hepper, 1992; Wells &

Hepper, 2000). A study in the United States found that 36% of owners obtained

their dogs to provide companionship. The same study found that 24% of the

dogs owned were strays, 18% were obtained by the owners for another person,

and 12% were obtained as a gift (Miller et al., 1996). However, it should be

noted that the study conducted by Miller et al. was based on a small sample

size; therefore, inferences from these data should be made with care.

In this study, 14.1% of the PO dogs were obtained as gifts, which is higher

than in the other groups of dogs. This could be due to the checks and advice

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ken

neth

Sha

piro

] at

08:

31 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

26 DIESEL, BRODBELT, PFEIFFER

given by the rehoming centers in preventing people from giving dogs as gifts.

The higher percentage of owners of dogs in the DT and ORK group who put a

lot of planning and forethought into the decision to obtain their dog, compared

with owners of dogs in the PO group, could be an indication of the work that

the animal welfare organizations do to make sure owners fully consider all the

factors involved in owning a dog. However, as we have no comparison group,

this cannot be confirmed; therefore, this may also indicate (a) that the advice is

not working and (b) that people, despite putting more forethought and planning

into their decision to obtain their dogs, still return or relinquish them.

Home Environment Characteristics

The percentage of owners in the different categories of the variables representing

the home environment and owner effort highlights the policies of Dogs Trust and

other rescue kennels and the type of person who takes on a “rescue” dog. Each

person who adopts a dog from a Dogs Trust center is assessed for suitability as

a dog owner and therefore is (a) less likely to be living in a flat; (b) more likely

to have a garden or yard, and (c) less likely to have children in the household.

Some members of staff at rescue shelters think that households with children

would often tend to have less time to dedicate to the dog, and many experts

advise against certain breeds being placed in households with children.

Of those dogs in the PO group, there were higher percentages of dogs who

were left for long periods on their own compared with dogs in the DT group.

This may be because, during an adoption of a dog from a Dogs Trust center, the

owners would have been made aware that certain breeds (high-energy breeds) of

dogs are not suitable to be left alone for long periods of time and may require

more exercise. In addition, because these dogs were originally either strays or

relinquished dogs, they might have preexisting behaviors, which meant that it

was not possible to leave them for long periods of time on their own. The higher

proportion of DT dogs for whom the owner found the “care and effort to be

more than expected” could be due to higher numbers of problematic behaviors

(because of the Dogs Trust noneuthanasia policy) or could be due to insufficient

advice or information given to the owners before adoption.

Behavioral Characteristics and Reasons

for Relinquishment

The results of this study agree with other studies in showing that problematic

behaviors are a major cause for relinquishment of a pet (Patronek et al., 1996).

However, a study in the United States found significantly higher numbers of

“owner aggression” and “fear of strangers” reported by owners who thought

the questionnaire was completely confidential compared with those owners who

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ken

neth

Sha

piro

] at

08:

31 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

RELINQUISHED DOGS AND THEIR OWNERS 27

knew the information was going to be used for rehoming their dog. This shows

that behavioral questions may provide information about the dog with regard to

some aspects of behavior; however, certain problems may not be fully reported,

especially when the owners suspect their answers will affect the likelihood that

their dog will be rehomed (Segurson, Serpell, & Hart, 2005).

This study found that problematic behaviors were given as the reason for

relinquishment in 34.2% of cases, commonly including destructive tendencies

and aggression. This is similar to the result found in a study at the Blue Cross

in the United Kingdom, which reported that 33% of relinquishments were due

to problematic behaviors, including dogs being destructive, not getting on with

children, and being aggressive (Bailey, 1992).

In the DT group, 55.1% were returned due to problematic behaviors. This

percentage is significantly higher than that of the other groups of dogs. Dogs

Trust has a noneuthanasia policy resulting in its often dealing with, and trying

to, rehome more difficult dogs; this could result in a higher number of dogs with

problematic behaviors being rehomed, resulting in owners—unwilling to try to

retrain the dogs—returning them. In this case, a review of the dog behavioral

assessments and rehabilitation procedures may be needed. In addition, Dogs

Trust requests owners who have any problems and no longer want their dogs to

return the dogs to Dogs Trust. This means that for these dogs a more complete

history would be available. It would be much more difficult to get this kind

of history for dogs obtained from other sources such as private breeders or pet

stores. If owners who did not obtain their dogs from Dogs Trust experienced

any problems with their dogs, they would have a number of places to take their

dogs for rehoming (other charities, friends, or family).

During the adoption process, Dogs Trust would have asked owners questions

regarding moving, potential change in job, and other owner-related factors. If it

was likely that any of these would take place soon after adoption, the owners

would be advised to wait to adopt a dog until settled in the new home or job.

Therefore, it is less likely that these owners would relinquish their dogs due

to these factors, increasing the proportion of dogs returned due to problematic

behaviors.

In some cases, for those dogs obtained from Dogs Trust, saying the dog has

a problematic behavior may be an “easy excuse” for returning the dogs rather

than admitting that they do not have the time or do not want to put any more

effort into caring for the dog. Or perhaps the owners had unrealistic expectations

and the advice from the staff at the rescue kennels was insufficient to prepare

them fully to own a dog. It is also thought that some owners may give what they

consider more “socially acceptable” reasons for relinquishing their dogs rather

than admitting the true reason. DiGiacomo, Arluke, and Patronek (1998) have

shown that some owners may underplay or underreport behavioral problems. It

is also important to consider that these problematic behaviors are those reported

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ken

neth

Sha

piro

] at

08:

31 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

28 DIESEL, BRODBELT, PFEIFFER

by the owners; therefore, there is some potential for incorrect categorization

and bias. Houpt et al. (1996) pointed out that it is rare to find true cases of

problematic behaviors and that it is often lack of knowledge or understanding

on the part of the owner that has either led to the problem or resulted in the

owner misinterpreting normal behavior.

Owners of dogs from the PO group may be concerned that, if they admit

their dog has any problematic behaviors, Dogs Trust may refuse to take on their

dog. Dogs Trust has a selective intake and may therefore give owner-related

problems as the reason for relinquishment. Marston et al. (2004) in Australia

found that 31.9% of relinquishments were due to owner-related factors, with

the most common reason (40.4%) being moving, 10.8% problematic behaviors,

and the remainder not giving a reason. Studies of shelters in the United States

found that moving was given as the reason for relinquishing a dog more often

than any other reason (New et al., 1999; Salman et al., 1998; Shore et al.,

2003). A study in the United States found that relinquishers had often tried

many other options before finally turning to a shelter. They also showed that

the reason given by owners was often not the primary reason for relinquishment

(DiGiacomo et al., 1998).

The comparison between this study and those conducted in the United States

highlights differences in predominant reasons given for relinquishment. In the

United States, owner-related problems are most common; in the United King-

dom, it appears that problematic behaviors are reported to be the predominant

reason.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this study has provided a description of relinquished dogs and

their previous owners in the United Kingdom. Many similarities were found

between studies conducted in the United States and Australia, but this study

also highlights some important differences between countries.

The two most common reasons for relinquishment could indicate that some

relinquishments may be due to inappropriate dog selection or lack of advice or

thought before deciding to obtain the dog. As an indication of this, many owners

admitted that they found they could not give their dogs the attention the dogs

needed; this in turn may have led to the development of problematic behaviors.

However, it may also indicate that a dog’s problematic behaviors result in the

dog’s being more demanding of the owner’s time, leading the owner to report

being unable to give the dog the attention needed.

The study shows that overall the most common reason for dogs to be re-

linquished to Dogs Trust are problematic behaviors with the majority of dogs

reported to have multiple problems, including aggression and destructive tenden-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ken

neth

Sha

piro

] at

08:

31 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

RELINQUISHED DOGS AND THEIR OWNERS 29

cies. However, this result was strongly affected by those dogs originally obtained

from Dogs Trust.

Those dogs in the PO group were relinquished more often due to owner-

related factors. This suggests that Dogs Trust and other rehoming kennels may

be able to reduce the likelihood of relinquishment due to owner-related problems

through advice and the careful monitoring of the adoption of dogs from rehoming

centers. Problematic behaviors remain a major issue that needs to be addressed

through the participation in training classes, the provision of behavioral advice,

and further education of owners in order to reduce the number of dogs relin-

quished to animal welfare centers.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Dogs Trust for funding this research. We also thank all the staff at

the Dogs Trust rehoming centers for making the data collection possible.

REFERENCES

Bailey, G. P. (1992). Parting with a pet survey. Journal of the Society for Companion Animal Studies,

5(3), 5–6.

Diesel, G., Pfeiffer, D. U., & Brodbelt, D. (2008). Factors affecting the success of rehoming dogs

in the UK during 2005. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 84, 228–241.

DiGiacomo, N., Arluke, A., & Patronek, G. J. (1998). Surrendering pets to shelters: The relin-

quisher’s perspective. Anthrozoös, 11, 41–51.

Gregory, F. (2000). The demographicsand epidemiology of pet ownership and canine relinquishment.

Glasgow, UK: University of Glasgow.

Houpt, K. A., Honig, S. U., & Reisner, I. R. (1996). Breaking the human-companion animal bond.

Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 208, 1653–1659.

Hubrecht, R. C., & Serpell, J. A. (1993). Influence of housing conditions on the behavior and welfare

of dogs. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 35, 293.

Kass, P. H., New, J. C., Jr., Scarlett, J. M., & Salman, M. D. (2001). Understanding animal companion

surplus in the United States: Relinquishment of nonadoptables to animal shelters for euthanasia.

Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 4, 237–248.

Marston, L. C., & Bennett, P. C. (2003). Reforging the bond—Towards successful canine adoption.

Applied Animal Behavior Science, 83, 227–245.

Marston, L. C., Bennett, P. C., & Coleman, G. J. (2004). What happens to shelter dogs? An analysis

of data for 1 year from three Australian shelters. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 7,

27–47.

Miller, D. D., Staats, S. R., Partlo, C., & Rada, K. (1996). Factors associated with the decision to

surrender a pet to an animal shelter. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association,

209, 738–742.

Mondelli, F., Prato Previde, E., Verga, M., Levi, D., Magistrelli, S., & Valsecchi, P. (2004). The

bond that never developed: Adoption and relinquishment of dogs in a rescue shelter. Journal of

Applied Animal Welfare Science, 7, 253–266.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ken

neth

Sha

piro

] at

08:

31 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

30 DIESEL, BRODBELT, PFEIFFER

National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy. (1997). Top 10 reasons for relinquishment

identified. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 9, 1256.

New, J. C., Jr., Salman, M. D., King, M., Scarlett, J., Kass, P. H., & Hutchinson, J. M. (2000).

Characteristics of shelter-relinquished animals and their owners compared with animals and their

owners in U.S. pet-owning households. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association,

3, 179–201.

New, J. C., Jr., Salman, M. D., Scarlett, J. M., Kass, P. H., Vaughn, J. A., & Scherr, S. (1999).

Moving: Characteristics of dogs and cats and those relinquishing them to 12 U.S. animal shelters.

Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 2, 83–96.

Olson, P. N., Moulton, C., Nett, T. M., & Salman, M. D. (1991). Pet overpopulation: A challenge

for companion animal veterinarians in the 1990s. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical

Association, 198, 1151–1152.

Patronek, G. J., Beck, A. M., & Glickman, L. T. (1997). Dynamics of dog and cat populations in a

community. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 210, 637–642.

Patronek, G. J., Glickman, L. T., Beck, A. M., McCabe, G. P., & Ecker, C. (1996). Risk factors

for relinquishment of dogs to an animal shelter. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical

Association, 209, 572–581.

Salman, M. D., New, J. C., Jr., Scarlett, J. M., Kass, P. H., Ruch-Gallie, R., & Hetts, S. (1998).

Human and animal factors related to the relinquishment of dogs and cats in 12 selected animal

shelters in the United States. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 1, 207–226.

Schwartz, S. (2003). Separation anxiety syndrome in dogs and cats. Journal of the American

Veterinary Medical Association, 222, 1526–1532.

Segurson, S. A., Serpell, J. A., & Hart, B. L. (2005). Evaluation of a behavioral assessment

questionnaire for use in the characterization of behavioral problems of dogs relinquished to animal

shelters. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 227, 1755–1761.

Shore, E. R., Petersen, C. L., & Douglas, D. K. (2003). Moving as a reason for pet relinquishment:

A closer look. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 6, 39–52.

Wells, D. L., & Hepper, P. G. (1992). The behavior of dogs in kennels. Animal Welfare, 1, 161–170.

Wells, D. L., & Hepper, P. G. (2000). Prevalence of behavior problems reported by owners of dogs

purchased from an animal rescue shelter. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 69, 55–65.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ken

neth

Sha

piro

] at

08:

31 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015